Re: Firefox headed to the 20% mark

"Rick" stated in postx5CdneFz07qO7wHVnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@supernews.com on 8/8/08 9:19 AM:
>> Ribbons are there for user reasons, even if problematic.
>>
>> Moving CANCEL buttons and re-naming Quit/Close/Exit menu items are *not*
>> done for user-based reasons. They are abritrary and detrimental. As
>> Rick has said:
>>
>> Rick:
>> I never said a consistent interface wasn't important.
>>
>> Rick:
>> And yes, I do know that it is better for the user if the button are
>> all in the same places in comparable dialog boxes, and that common
>> menu items are the same.
>>
>> Rick:
>> Actually my view is not so different from usability experts. It does
>> enhance usability to have menus and controls in the same places
>> across applications. The more uniform or consistent that is, the
>> better for the user. I have said this many times before. I am not
>> coming around to your point of view.
>>
>> Rick:
>> I have repeatedly said I agree that that consistency across an
>> interface lowers errors and increases efficiency of use.
>>
>> Shuttleworth gets this and Rick used to. Not sure why it is a source of
>> conflict in a group that supposedly knows about Linux.
>
> Fine. Now maybe you can get some specifics instead of Shuttleworth's
> broad statements about working together and user experience, other than
> the Linux user experience should be art. I think KDE is getting the art
> covered.

I have talked specifics many times. Here is a lengthy quote from a recent
example:

The Ghost In The Machine:
I would agree that it's acceptable to *me* personally. I'll
admit I don't know other's opinions thereon, although Snit's
postings are rather suggestive of flaws in PCLinuxOS -- flaws
which are hopefully easily correctable in subsequent revs.

Rick:
What flaws in PCLOS? The flaws, if there are any, are in the apps.

Snit:
Apps come with PCLOS... without them, in fact, the distro
would be of little value to most people. PCLOS is more than
just the Linux core - it *is* the whole package. The "core",
the apps, the settings... that is what makes PCLOS *be*
PCLOS. This is not to say that a user cannot modify things
from there.

Rick:
The visual inconsistency comes from using apps from different
environments at the same time.

Snit:
At least in part this is true - it would be better if those
arbitrary (from the user perspective) inconsistencies were
not there. The current situation on PCLOS has all sorts of
inconsistencies: print, save, and other dialogs having
buttons in different places, "common" menu items being
organized in different ways in different apps, similar
controls working in different ways, etc. (and in ways not
designed around user needs). Such inconsistency leads to a
reduction in efficiency, a greater risk of making errors
(including losing work), an increase in training/learning
time - there really is no way in which it is (directly)
better for the user.

Rick:
There would be no difference if you ran KDE/Qt apps, and
Gnome/gtk apps under OS X. Oops, I made a mistake... there
would be 3 sets of inconsistencies.

Snit:
Sure, for OS X user they can go out of their way to build
inconsistencies... and there may be rare cases where such
inconsistencies are unavoidable, such as when when Apple was
transitioning from OS 9. During that transition it was
common - perhaps even the norm - for users to be need
Classic. Even then though, Apple did it well - they had
Classic be in a different context to make it so the
differences were not subtle and there was a mental "mode
change", Subtle differences have a bigger detrimental effect
- at least according to what studies have shown and what I
have seen. If you look back at some of my posts from that
time you can find comments I made where I said it was a shame
Classic was not better integrated - looking back I think I
was in error. With Carbon Apple also gave developers a path
toward moving to the new "context", even if not 100%
perfectly (there were a number of arbitrary (from the user
perspective) differences between Cocoa and Carbon - though
most of those have been resolved... just in time for Apple to
look like they are preparing to phase Carbon out... sigh.
But I digress back to Classic.

At this time Classic is gone - it is not even supported on
current Macs. Frankly I see this as a shame - there are
times it is worth the "cost" of having the fractured user
experience. Still, there is a new similar situation in at
least a fair number of current Macs; running Windows in
virtualization. There is clearly a cost to this - the cost
of the fracturing of the user environment, but again it is
not subtle and *generally* in a different context (its own
window) though you can with the modern solutions have
"coherence mode". While I think it is good people can do
this, I think it is a detriment to most people. From what I
have seen in person and online most people agree with this -
they love the idea, but when they actually start to use it
they go back to full screen or single window mode.

In general, though, with OS X there is relatively strong
consistency... very strong, really (though not perfect, of
course). The cost of this when you go with Apple is that the
consistency is decided by Apple... and if you do not like it
you are "stuck". Some of my pet peeves here are the single
menu (not ideal for multiple monitors), the lack of ability
to resize from any edge of a window (as you can with any
other system!), the lack of a full maximize mode for windows,
and even the close button being on the "wrong" side compared
to other system - for no reason I know of. Heck, even being
"stuck" with the Dock is an annoyance to more than a small
number (though for the most part I am fine with it). In some
of those cases there are third party programs to change
things - but it is not something the general user would even
consider... and likely not without quirks and risks over
time. Even as I as an advanced user do not bother "fixing"
the "problems" I note above.

With Linux you do get to decide if you want a full maximize
mode, where yiu want your close buttons, etc... you get more
control and I have heard few call that anything other than a
benefit (I know I see it as such). But you do not get the
choice of consistency, not without putting a lot of effort
into it... effort no distro has been able to do (Ubuntu,
however, is clearly working that way).

So you are right that neither OS X nor Linux is perfect in
terms of consistency - but, in general, a user has to work to
*break* the consistency of the Mac (most never do)... and a
user has to work to try to build consistency on desktop Linux
(I have never seen anyone succeed ad no desktop distro has
managed to do what is clearly an advantage). These are two
very different situations.

Windows, on the third hand - gives you the weaknesses of
Linux (inconsistencies - though not as much as Linux distros)
and the weaknesses of OS X (lack of ability to change things
around - though Windows gives you more control than OS X).
It has the strength of less likelihood of having to use
another OS in virtualization (so many programs run on Windows
that Mac and Linux users are more likely to need to run
Windows programs in virtualization or whatever).

What I would love to see from Linux - and I am clearly not
the only one - is the ability to keep the Linux benefits that
both OS X and Windows lack (in context the flexibility of the
UI) while allowing people to gain the consistency that
desktop Linux lacks.

The Ghost In The Machine has some, I think, good ideas on
some of the "back end" ways this might be done - he clearly
understands those issues better than I do. However it is
done, though, it would be great if users of Distro X could
have consistent Print and Save dialogs consistent across the
distro... heck, with Distro X logos on it to help build
branding if they want. Same with menus and general controls.
Unless there is a user-based reason then at least the vast
majority of the shipping programs should be able to be
consistent.

This is not to say that PCLOS and other distros cannot elect
to remain fractured... or inconsistent if you do not like
that word. But if the ecosystem of Linux/OSS software was to
grow in the way I describe then the makers of PCLOS could
decide what they think is best for their users *across the
board* - they would have choices that they currently do not
have (in any reasonable way).

I am not pretending that this is easy or can happen over
night - but clearly it *adds* choices that are better for the
user (increases efficiency, reduces the risk of making
errors, shortens training/ learning time, etc.

And yet you still claim I am anti-choice and looking for the "one true UI".

--
"The music is not inside the piano." - Alan Kay

Re: Firefox headed to the 20% mark

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 08:31:02 -0700, Snit wrote:
> "Rick" stated in post
> x5CdneFz07qO7wHVnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@supernews.com on 8/8/08 9:19 AM:
>
>>> Ribbons are there for user reasons, even if problematic.
>>>
>>> Moving CANCEL buttons and re-naming Quit/Close/Exit menu items are
>>> *not* done for user-based reasons. They are abritrary and
>>> detrimental. As Rick has said:
>>>
>>> Rick:
>>> I never said a consistent interface wasn't important.
>>>
>>> Rick:
>>> And yes, I do know that it is better for the user if the button are
>>> all in the same places in comparable dialog boxes, and that common
>>> menu items are the same.
>>>
>>> Rick:
>>> Actually my view is not so different from usability experts. It
>>> does enhance usability to have menus and controls in the same
>>> places across applications. The more uniform or consistent that is,
>>> the better for the user. I have said this many times before. I am
>>> not coming around to your point of view.
>>>
>>> Rick:
>>> I have repeatedly said I agree that that consistency across an
>>> interface lowers errors and increases efficiency of use.
>>>
>>> Shuttleworth gets this and Rick used to. Not sure why it is a source
>>> of conflict in a group that supposedly knows about Linux.
>>
>> Fine. Now maybe you can get some specifics instead of Shuttleworth's
>> broad statements about working together and user experience, other than
>> the Linux user experience should be art. I think KDE is getting the art
>> covered.
>
> I have talked specifics many times. Here is a lengthy quote from a
> recent example:
>
> The Ghost In The Machine:
> I would agree that it's acceptable to *me* personally. I'll admit I
> don't know other's opinions thereon, although Snit's postings are
> rather suggestive of flaws in PCLinuxOS -- flaws which are hopefully
> easily correctable in subsequent revs.
>
> Rick:
> What flaws in PCLOS? The flaws, if there are any, are in the apps.
>
> Snit:
> Apps come with PCLOS... without them, in fact, the distro would be
> of little value to most people. PCLOS is more than just the Linux
> core - it *is* the whole package. The "core", the apps, the
> settings... that is what makes PCLOS *be* PCLOS. This is not to say
> that a user cannot modify things from there.
>
> Rick:
> The visual inconsistency comes from using apps from different
> environments at the same time.
>
> Snit:
> At least in part this is true - it would be better if those
> arbitrary (from the user perspective) inconsistencies were not
> there. The current situation on PCLOS has all sorts of
> inconsistencies: print, save, and other dialogs having buttons in
> different places, "common" menu items being organized in different
> ways in different apps, similar controls working in different ways,
> etc. (and in ways not designed around user needs). Such
> inconsistency leads to a reduction in efficiency, a greater risk of
> making errors (including losing work), an increase in
> training/learning time - there really is no way in which it is
> (directly) better for the user.
>
> Rick:
> There would be no difference if you ran KDE/Qt apps, and Gnome/gtk
> apps under OS X. Oops, I made a mistake... there would be 3 sets of
> inconsistencies.
>
> Snit:
> Sure, for OS X user they can go out of their way to build
> inconsistencies... and there may be rare cases where such
> inconsistencies are unavoidable, such as when when Apple was
> transitioning from OS 9. During that transition it was common -
> perhaps even the norm - for users to be need Classic. Even then
> though, Apple did it well - they had Classic be in a different
> context to make it so the differences were not subtle and there was
> a mental "mode change", Subtle differences have a bigger
> detrimental effect - at least according to what studies have shown
> and what I have seen. If you look back at some of my posts from that
> time you can find comments I made where I said it was a shame
> Classic was not better integrated - looking back I think I was in
> error. With Carbon Apple also gave developers a path toward moving
> to the new "context", even if not 100% perfectly (there were a
> number of arbitrary (from the user perspective) differences between
> Cocoa and Carbon - though most of those have been resolved... just
> in time for Apple to look like they are preparing to phase Carbon
> out... sigh. But I digress back to Classic.
>
> At this time Classic is gone - it is not even supported on current
> Macs. Frankly I see this as a shame - there are times it is worth
> the "cost" of having the fractured user experience. Still, there is
> a new similar situation in at least a fair number of current Macs;
> running Windows in virtualization. There is clearly a cost to this
> - the cost of the fracturing of the user environment, but again it
> is not subtle and *generally* in a different context (its own
> window) though you can with the modern solutions have "coherence
> mode". While I think it is good people can do this, I think it is a
> detriment to most people. From what I have seen in person and online
> most people agree with this - they love the idea, but when they
> actually start to use it they go back to full screen or single
> window mode.
>
> In general, though, with OS X there is relatively strong
> consistency... very strong, really (though not perfect, of course).
> The cost of this when you go with Apple is that the consistency is
> decided by Apple... and if you do not like it you are "stuck". Some
> of my pet peeves here are the single menu (not ideal for multiple
> monitors), the lack of ability to resize from any edge of a window
> (as you can with any other system!), the lack of a full maximize
> mode for windows, and even the close button being on the "wrong"
> side compared to other system - for no reason I know of. Heck, even
> being "stuck" with the Dock is an annoyance to more than a small
> number (though for the most part I am fine with it). In some of
> those cases there are third party programs to change things - but it
> is not something the general user would even consider... and likely
> not without quirks and risks over time. Even as I as an advanced
> user do not bother "fixing" the "problems" I note above.
>
> With Linux you do get to decide if you want a full maximize mode,
> where yiu want your close buttons, etc... you get more control and I
> have heard few call that anything other than a benefit (I know I see
> it as such). But you do not get the choice of consistency, not
> without putting a lot of effort into it... effort no distro has been
> able to do (Ubuntu, however, is clearly working that way).
>
> So you are right that neither OS X nor Linux is perfect in terms of
> consistency - but, in general, a user has to work to *break* the
> consistency of the Mac (most never do)... and a user has to work to
> try to build consistency on desktop Linux (I have never seen anyone
> succeed ad no desktop distro has managed to do what is clearly an
> advantage). These are two very different situations.
>
> Windows, on the third hand - gives you the weaknesses of Linux
> (inconsistencies - though not as much as Linux distros) and the
> weaknesses of OS X (lack of ability to change things around - though
> Windows gives you more control than OS X). It has the strength of
> less likelihood of having to use another OS in virtualization (so
> many programs run on Windows that Mac and Linux users are more
> likely to need to run Windows programs in virtualization or
> whatever).
>
> What I would love to see from Linux - and I am clearly not the only
> one - is the ability to keep the Linux benefits that both OS X and
> Windows lack (in context the flexibility of the UI) while allowing
> people to gain the consistency that desktop Linux lacks.
>
> The Ghost In The Machine has some, I think, good ideas on some of
> the "back end" ways this might be done - he clearly understands
> those issues better than I do. However it is done, though, it would
> be great if users of Distro X could have consistent Print and Save
> dialogs consistent across the distro... heck, with Distro X logos on
> it to help build branding if they want. Same with menus and general
> controls.
> Unless there is a user-based reason then at least the vast
> majority of the shipping programs should be able to be consistent.
>
> This is not to say that PCLOS and other distros cannot elect to
> remain fractured... or inconsistent if you do not like that word.
> But if the ecosystem of Linux/OSS software was to grow in the way I
> describe then the makers of PCLOS could decide what they think is
> best for their users *across the board* - they would have choices
> that they currently do not have (in any reasonable way).
>
> I am not pretending that this is easy or can happen over night - but
> clearly it *adds* choices that are better for the user (increases
> efficiency, reduces the risk of making errors, shortens training/
> learning time, etc.
>
> And yet you still claim I am anti-choice and looking for the "one true
> UI".